Decision Summary HPA No. 02-398

Applicant sought to alter the storefront and windows of its property located in the Georgetown Historic District. The Mayor’s Agent, rejecting the recommendations of the Old Georgetown Board and Commission on Fine Arts, concluded that the alterations were consistent with the building’s style and scale and similar to other approved alterations in the historic district. For these reasons, he concluded that the alterations consistent with the purposes of the Act and therefore necessary in the public interest. His conclusion was based on his finding that the building did not contributing to the historic district, since it fell outside the historic district’s period of significance, and that alterations to non-contributing buildings are held to a lower standard of review (“generally consistent in character with the historic district”) than alterations to contributing buildings and historic landmarks.

Alteration:

The Mayor’s Agent concluded that the Applicant’s proposed alterations to its storefront façade and windows were consistent with the building’s Art Moderne style and scale. Such consistency, he concluded, was sufficient given that the test for alterations of non-contributing buildings in historic districts is “generally consistent in character with the historic district.”

Consistent with the Purposes of the Act:

Finding that the Applicant’s proposed alterations to the storefront and windows of its non-contributing building in the Georgetown Historic District were compatible with the historic district, the Mayor’s Agent found that issuing the permit was consistent with the purposes of the Act.

Historic District—Contributing Building:

Alterations to non-contributing buildings located in historic districts are held to a lower standard of review (“generally consistent in character with the historic district”) than are alterations to contributing buildings and historic landmarks.

Mayor’s Agent—Procedural:

Although the advice of the Old Georgetown Board “is helpful and quite often persuasive… it is not binding on the Mayor’s Agent.” The Mayor’s Agent may rely on contrary advice if “he demonstrates that the recommendation was considered and rejected on a rational basis.” SeeCommittee for Washington’s Riverfront Parks v. Thompson, 451 A.2d 1177, 1193 (D.C. 1982).